(^*76. 5 
Am351 I 


Th' 

Sh“  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

moy 

APR  1 7 w 

rt 

APR  6 ! 

976  1 

| APR  2 9 

1978 

APR  1 6 V 

178 

JUN  5 
«Al  At  »• 

#»6 

R 

Lure 

1 JOt 

1 1978 

DEC  13 

jure 

NOV  2 0 

1978 

BUlLDiNQ  U$E  OtyL^ 

1 


- 


■4 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/injunctionabatemOOamer 


DEPARTKtfiT 

Injunction  and 
Abatement  Law 


Published  and  Distributed  by  the 

AMERICAN  VIGILANCE  ASSOCIATION 

Department  of  Legislation  and  Law  Enforcement 
156  Fifth  Avenue  : : New  York  City 


Prices  (exclusive  of  mail  or  express  charges) 
Single  copy  5 cents; 

, 100  copies  $2.50;  1,000  copies  $22.00 


I 


)iS 

GN 


PURPOSE  OF  THE 

AMERICAN  VIGILANCE  ASSOCIATION 

The  purpose  of  this  Association  shall  be  to  sup- 
press and  prevent  commercialized  vice,  and  to  pro- 
mote the  highest  standard  of  public  and  private 
morals.  To  accomplish  this  purpose,  the  Associa- 
tion shall  strive  for  the  constant,  persistent  a 
absolute  repression  of  prostitution  and  the  passa 
and  enforcement  of  laws  for  the  rescue  and  prot< 
tion  of  girls  and  women,  for  the  promotion 
knowledge  of  the  social  evil,  its  effects  and  resul 
and  for  the  circulation  of  the  best  literature 
garding  it. 


ITC.-4' 
^•3,51  X 


Injunction  and  Abatement  Law 


PREFACE. 


The  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law  here  pre- 
sented and  discussed  was  enacted  originally  in  the 
State  of  Iowa  in  July,  1909*  Nebraska  adopted 
a similar  act  in  April,  191L  and  Utah,  Oregon, 
Washington,  Minnesota,  California,  South  Dakota, 
Kansas  and  Wisconsin  in  1913,  and  recently  the 
“ Kenyon  Bill” — an  Injunction  and  Abatement 
Law  for  the  District  of  Columbia — passed  the 
United  States  Senate  by  unanimous  consent. 

The  object  of  this  law  is  to  place  the  responsibility 
for  the  existence  of  disorderly  houses  upon  the 
owners  and  agents  of  the  property.  To-day  it  is 
ithe  property  owner  who  realizes  large  profits  from 
commercialized  vice ; it  is  the  property  owner  or 
this  agent  who  frequently  encourages  the  use  of 
houses  for  such  purposes  and  it  is  the  owner  or  agent 
who  is  most  difficult  to  reach  under  our  criminal 

\f- 

statutes. 

y It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  leaflet  to  discuss  the 
Injunction  and  Abatement  Law  of  any  particular 
£ state.  The  method  of  bringing  the  action,  the  legal 
procedure  and  many  of  the  details  of  such  a law  must 
vary  in  the  different  jurisdictions.  However,  the 
underlying  principles  of  all  these  acts  are  the  same; 
a discussion  of  these,  together  with  the  presentation 
"S^KiSme  facts  regarding  the  practical  operations  of 
the  law  will  be  of  general  value. 

The  Present  System. 

\A 

Almost  every  state  in  the  Union  has  a criminal 
^statute  directed  against  keeping  houses  of  ill-fame 
and  prostitution.  The  ineffectiveness  of  these  laws 
- Js  proved  by  the  fact  that  houses  of  prostitution  are 
i^3>eing  operated  in  almost  every  city  and  town  of 
any  considerable  size.  This  is  due  in  part  to  the 
following  causes:  LIBRARY 

3 UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

AT  URBANA -CHAMPAIGN 


1.  Changed  conditions  since  these  statutes  were  ; 

enacted.  Prostitution  has  become  more  commercial- 
ized, and  this  has  resulted  in  the  so-called  white-  1 
slave  traffic.  Property  owners  and  agents,  as  well 
as  keepers,  now  realize  large  profits  from  buildings 
used  for  purposes  of  prostitution,  whereas  formerly 
the  keepers  alone  were  financially  interested  in  the 
business.  i ^ 

2.  The  character  of  the  evidence  demanded  by 
the  courts  which  makes  it  difficult  to  secure  convic- 
tions under  these  laws.  Some  courts  have  ruled  that 
the  general  reputation  of  the  house  is  not  competent 
to  establish  the  fact  that  it  is  a house  of  ill-fame. 
Indeed,  courts  have  required  evidence  of  immoral 
acts  occurring  on  the  premises,  such  evidence  being 
difficult  to  secure  without  the  witnesses  being  a party 
to  the  commission  of  a crime. 

3.  The  inadequate  and  ineffective  sentences 
which  generally  follow  convictions  under  these 
statutes.  Fines  instead  of  jail  sentences  are  imposed, 
and  these  merely  stimulate  the  keepers  to  increase 
their  business  rather  than  to  suppress  it.  Sometimes 
courts  impose  sentences  of  this  nature  even  when  the 
records  show  that  the  defendant  has  been  convicted 
several  times  of  keeping  a disorderly  house. 

4.  The  impossibility  under  these  statutes  of  j) 
holding  the  owner  responsible  for  the  improper  use 

of  his  property.  Keepers  and  proprietors  of  houses 
of  ill-fame  may  be  prosecuted  under  our  present 
laws,  but  property  owners  and  agents,  who  frequent- 
ly encourage  the  use  of  their  property  for  immoral  re- 
purposes, are  most  difficult  to  reach  and  so  escape 
punishment. 

The  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law.  j 

This  law  first  declares  houses  of  ill-fame,  as- 
signation and  prostitution  to  be  nuisances.  That 
such  places  are  nuisances  is  a recognized  principle  I 
of  the  English  Common  Law  (See  American  and 
English  Encyclopedia  of  Law,  Volume  9,  page  509, 
and  the  case  of  Jacobowsky  vs.  People  1875  6 
Hun  N.  Y.  524).  Some  states  already  have  j 
statutes  declaring  places  of  this  nature  to  be 
nuisances.  (Massachusetts  Statutes  1902  page 
859,  New  Hampshire  Statutes  1901  page  670). 

It  is  within  the  power  of  the  states  legislatures  to 
declare  what  constitutes  a nuisance,  and  a statute 


4 


which  states  that  houses  of  ill-fame,  assignation  and 
prostitution  are  nuisances  is  valid  and  constitutional. 
(See  State  vs.  Beardsley  1899,  108  Iowa  396. 
Com.  vs.  Howe,  Mass.  13  Gray  26,  and  Ameri- 
can and  English  Encyclopedia  of  Law,  Volume 
21,  page  739).  In  the  case  of  Pon  vs.  Wittman 
(1905)  147  Cal.  292,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Cali- 
fornia said : 

“ These  houses  are  common  or  public  nuisances, 
their  maintenance  directly  tends  to  corrupt  and 
debase  public  morals,  to  promote  vice  and  to  en- 
courage dissolute  and  idle  habits,  and  the  suppres- 
sion of  nuisances  of  this  character  is  one  of  the  im- 
portant duties  of  government.” 

The  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law  declares  that 
whoever  establishes,  maintains,  owns,  or  leases  a 
place  used  for  purposes  of  prostitution  shall  be 
guilty  of  maintaining  a nuisance.  Under  this  pro- 
vision, owners,  agents  and  lessees,  as  well  as  keepers 
and  occupants,  are  made  responsible  for  the  manner 
in  which  the  property  is  used,  and  the  fact  that  the 
law  does  not  require  knowledge  of  the  unlawful  use 
on  the  part  of  the  owner  does  not  render  it  uncon- 
stitutional. (Commonwealth  vs.  Howe,  Mass. 
13  Gray  26). 

The  action  under  this  law  is  brought  in  a court 
of  equity  to  enjoin  and  abate  the  nuisance.  Courts 
of  equity  have  always  exercised  jurisdiction  over 
suits  to  enjoin  and  abate  nuisances  (See  American 
and  English  Encyclopedia  of  Law,  Volume  21,  page 
703).  The  advantages  of  a suit  in  equity  over  a 
criminal  action  are  principally  the  following: 

1.  In  equity  proceedings  the  trial  is  before  a 
judge,  or  court  of  judges,  while  in  criminal  prose- 
cution it  is  before  a jury. 

2.  In  suits  at  equity  either  party  has  the  right  of 
appeal,  while  in  criminal  cases  only  the  defendant 
may  take  his  case  to  a higher  court. 

3.  In  criminal  prosecutions  a defendant  may 
avoid  the  judgment  of  the  court  by  forfeiting  bail, 
but  in  injunction  proceedings  the  judgment  is  di- 
rected primarily  against  the  property  on  which  the 
nuisance  is  kept  and  cannot  be  avoided  by  any  such 
act  on  the  part  of  the  defendant. 

The  action  to  enjoin  and  abate  the  nuisance  may 
be  brought  by  the  prosecuting  attorney  or  by  a citi- 


5 


zen  or  tax-payer.  Thus  the  public  is  afforded  a 
means  of  proceeding  against  these  houses  and  their 
owners  without  relying  upon  prosecutors  or  police 
officials. 

The  citizen  or  prosecuting  attorney  begins  his 
action  by  filing  a petition  (or  complaint)  as  in  any 
other  civil  action,  except  that  such  petition  is  in 
the  name  of  “ The  People  ” rather  than  in  his  own 
name.  He  requests  the  court  to  grant  a temporary 
injunction  during  the  pendency  of  the  suit  and  a 
permanent  injunction  after  final  hearing. 

The  temporary  injunction  does  not  issue  against 
the  premises.  All  that  is  contemplated  at  the  time 
it  is  granted  is  the  restraining  of  the  owner  and 
occupant  from  conducting  the  nuisance  during  the 
trial.  (See  Gray  vs.  Stienes  1886  69  Iowa  124). 
In  criminal  prosecutions  against  disorderly  houses 
the  defendant  endeavors  to  secure  as  many  delays 
and  continuances  as  possible  that  he  may  conduct 
the  nuisance  during  the  pendency  of  the  trial.  But 
under  the  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law  this  is 
impossible.  Should  the  defendant  fail  to  appear 
when  the  case  is  called  in  court,  or  secures  a post- 
ponement of  the  preliminary  hearing,  the  temporary 
injunction  is  granted.  This  is  in  accordance  with 
the  customary  procedure  in  injunction  suits;  as  long 
as  the  defendant  is  served  with  notice  (and  service 
of  notice  is  provided  for  in  this  law)  he  cannot  con- 
tend that  this  practice  is  unusual  or  unconstitutional. 
(See  Littleton  vs.  Fritz,  65  Iowa  488,  22  N.  W. 
641,  54  Amer.  St.  Rep.  19  and  State  vs.  Jordan, 
72  Iowa  377,  34  N.  W.  285). 

The  action  for  the  permanent  injunction  is  tried 
at  the  term  of  court  following  the  issuance  of  the 
preliminary  injunction,  and  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  the  action  is  in  the  name  of  “ The  People  ” 
it  is  given  in  most  states  a preference  over  other  cases 
on  the  calendar. 

There  is  a provision  in  the  law  to  the  effect  that 
the  general  reputation  (or  common  fame)  of  the 
place  shall  be  competent  evidence  to  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  the  nuisance.  Ordinarily  legislatures  have 
the  power  to  establish  or  change  rules  of  evidence 
(see  Cooley’s  Constitutional  Limitations  1903 
pages  409-410)  ; and  it  is  well  settled  that  they 
may  provide  that  the  general  reputation  of  the  place 
shall  be  admissible  to  prove  the  existence  of  a nuis- 
ance. (See  State  vs.  Waldron  1888  16  R.  I.,  page 
6 


191;  People  vs.  Pasquale  1912,  206  N.  Y.  598 
and  cases  cited  under  note  70  of  14  Cyc.  page  504). 

Precaution  is  taken  against  the  wrongful  use  of 
the  law  and  against  discontinuance  of  an  action 
through  improper  influence. 

If  the  nuisance  is  proved,  an  injunction  issues 
which  permanently  and  perpetually  enjoins  the  de- 
fendant from  conducting  the  nuisance  on  the  prem- 
ises, and  further  enjoins  the  occupancy  .or  use  of 
the  premises  for  any  purpose  for  a period  of  one 
year. 

In  some  states  the  law  provides  that  a similar 
injunction  shall  issue  where  any  person  shall  have 
been  convicted  criminally  of  keeping  a disorderly 
house. 

If  an  injunction,  either  temporary  or  permanent, 
is  granted  and  the  defendant  violates  it,  he  is  guilty 
of  contempt  of  court  and  may  be  fined  or  imprisoned. 
It  is  within  the  authorized  power  of  the  state  legis- 
latures to  provide  for  the  punishment  of  the  person 
who  is  guilty  of  contempt  of  court,  but  the  viola- 
tion of  an  injunction  constitutes  contempt  of  court 
regardless  of  legislative  enactment  to  that  effect. 
(See  Volume  16  of  American  and  English  Encyclo- 
pedia of  Law,  page  436,  and  Jordan  vs.  Circuit 
Court  1887,  69  Iowa  177). 

As  a part  of  the  judgment  on  final  hearing  an 
order  of  abatement  is  entered  by  which  the  contents 
of  the  buildings  are  sold  as  chattels  under  execution 
and  the  building  is  closed  for  one  year  unless  sooner 
released  by  order  of  the  court.  It  is  entirely  within 
the  power  of  the  legislature  to  provide  for  the 
abatement  of  the  nuisance  after  its  existence  has  been 
proved  (See  State  vs.  Jordan  1887  72  Iowa  377) 
and  the  defendant  is  not  deprived  of  his  property 
without  due  process  of  law  by  the  order  which  di- 
rects the  sale  of  the  contents  of  the  house.  In  the 
case  last  cited,  this  identical  objection  was  raised  to 
the  Liquor  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law  of  the 
state  of  Iowa.  The  court  states,  “ If  the  defendant 
should,  through  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  chancery 
in  abating  the  nuisance  which  she  maintained,  be 
deprived  of  property,  it  will  be  by  due  process  of  the 
law  administered  in  courts  of  chancery.” 

When  the  use  of  the  property  has  been  denied 
by  order  of  the  court,  the  owner,  agent  or  lessee  of 
the  property  may  appear  and  file  a bond  for  a 


7 


definite  amount  or  for  the  full  value  of  the  property 
stating  that  he  will  abate  the  nuisance  and  the 
court,  if  satisfied  of  his  good  faith,  may  deliver  the 
premises  to  such  owner,  agent  or  lessee  who  may 
use  it  for  a legitimate  purpose.  This  section  is 
intended  to  cover  the  situation  where  suit  has  been 
commenced  and  the  owner,  agent  or  lessee,  without 
going  to  the  trial,  pleads  guilty  of  the  charge,  or 
after  being  tried  is  found  guilty,  and  is  willing 
peaceably  to  discontinue  the  nuisance. 

Under  the  law  in  some  states  a tax  is  assessed 
against  the  property  whereon  such  nuisance  is  con- 
ducted and  against  its  owner  or  agent.  There  is 
much  diversity  of  opinion  regarding  the  propriety,  as 
well  as  the  constitutionality,  of  this  tax,  and  for  this 
reason  it  has  been  omitted  in  some  of  the  more 
recent  bills. 

Several  decisions  have  been  rendered  in  the  state 
of  Iowa  on  the  validity  of  the  principal  provisions 
of  the  Liquor  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law.  In 
the  case  of  Littleton  vs.  Fritz  (65  Iowa  488;  22  N. 
W.  645;  54  Am.  St.  Rep.  19),  the  point  was  raised 
that  such  a law  is  unconstitutional  in  that  it  de- 
prived the  defendant  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 
The  court  said  that  the  jurisdiction  of  equity  to  en- 
join and  abate  nuisances  was  of  very  ancient  origin 
and  since  it  is  the  rule  in  courts  of  equity  for  the 
chancellor  to  try  cases  without  a jury,  the  defendant 
could  not  be  heard  to  say  he  was  being  deprived 
of  his  right  of  trial  by  jury.  In  other  words,  a 
defendant  does  not  have  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
in  equity  and  therefore  is  not  deprived  of  such  a 
right  under  a statute  which  creates  an  offense  over 
which  equity  has  jurisdiction. 

In  the  same  case  it  was  held  that  the  Injunction 
and  Abatement  Law  was  not  unconstitutional  be- 
cause it  attempted  to  enforce  a criminal  law  by 
a civil  action.  On  this  proposition  the  court  said: 
“ One  maintaining  a nuisance  may  not  only  be  pun- 
ished in  a criminal  proceeding  but  a civil  action  at 
law  to  recover  damages  in  a proper  case,  and  an 
action  in  equity  to  restrain  the  nuisance,  may  be  pro- 
secuted against  him.” 

It  was  further  argued  that  the  Injunction  and 
Abatement  Law  was  unconstitutional  because  it 
authorized  an  action  to  be  brought  by  any  citizen 
of  the  county,  without  showing  that  he  was  espe- 
8 


dally  damaged  by  the  nuisance.  The  court  decided 
that  this  was  no  reason  for  holding  the  law  uncon- 
stitutional, saying,  “ It  is  surely  within  the  power 
of  the  legislature  to  designate  the  persons  at  whose 
suit  a nuisance  may  be  enjoined  and  abated.” 

Finally,  it  was  argued  that  a temporary  injunction 
could  not  be  issued  against  the  defendant  before  a 
conviction  had  taken  place.  This  point  was  also 
decided  against  the  defendant. 

Several  of  the  questions  decided  in  the  Littleton 
case  came  before  Supreme  Court  of  Iowa  again 
in  the  case  of  State  vs.  Jordan  (72  Iowa  377 ) , and 
were  disposed  of  in  like  manner.  The  Jordan  case 
cited  with  approval  Littleton  vs.  Fritz. 

All  the  foregoing  conclusions  apply  by  analogy 
to  the  law  now  under  consideration. 

Summary  of  the  Law. 

I.  Houses  of  ill-fame,  prostitution  and  assigna- 
tion declared  to  be  nuisances. 

II.  Citizens  or  taxpayers  and  prosecuting  attor- 
ney given  right  to  institute  proceedings  for  abate- 
ment of  nuisance. 

a.  Action  is  in  Court  of  Equity. 

b.  After  notice  and  hearing  temporary  injunc- 
tion issues  immediately  suppressing  nuisance. 

c.  After  trial  permanent  injunction  and  order 
of  abatement  issues. 

d.  General  reputation  competent  evidence. 

III.  Violation  of  injunction  a contempt  of 
court. 

IV.  Sheriff  executes  abatement  order,  sells  chat- 
tels and  closes  the  place  for  one  year. 

V.  Owner  may  secure  release  of  closing  order 
by  filing  bond  for  an  adequate  amount,  which  bond 
is  liable  to  forfeiture  if  nuisance  is  re-established. 

VI.  Tax  assessed  against  the  property  and  its 
owner  in  some  states. 

Results  and  Endorsements  of  the  Injunction 
and  Abatement  Law. 

The  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law  has  received 
the  fairest  test  in  the  state  of  Iowa  where  it  was 
first  enacted.  The  following  statement  in  reference 
to  the  past  and  present  situation  in  Iowa  is  by 
former  Attorney  General  Byers : 

“ Previous  to  the  passage  and  taking  effect  of  chapter 
214,  acts  of  the  thirty-third  general  assembly,  which  pro- 

9 


vides  for  the  issuance  of  a permanent  and  temporary  in- 
junction against  houses  of  assignation;  and  also  chaptei 
78  acts  of  the  thirty-third  general  assembly,  which  pro- 
vides for  the  removal  of  county  attorneys,  sheriffs,  may- 
ors, police  officers,  marshals,  and  constables  by  a sum- 
mary process  for  willful  or  habitual  neglect  or  refusal 
to  perform  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices,  there 
had  been  in  almost  every  large  city  in  this  State  what  is 
known  as  a red-light  district.  Since  the  taking  effect  of 
these  acts  this  has  been  entirely  abolished,  and,  so  far 
as  I am  advised  and  able  to  learn,  there  is  now  no  or- 
ganized segregated  district  in  the  State  where  this  evil 
is  carried  on  under  the  protection  or  acquiescence  of 
local  authorities.” 

Extract  from  letter  of  E.  C.  Lytton,  Secretary 
to  Mayor  of  Des  Moines,  Iowa: 

“ Prostitution  has  very  materially  decreased  since  the 
enactment  of  the  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law.  Offi- 
cers of  our  police  department  assert  that  while  there 
were  in  the  old  days  of  the  ‘ Red  Light  District  ’ perhaps 
three  hundred  prostitutes  in  our  city,  there  are  now  not 
more  than  one-fourth  that  number.  Enemies  of  suppres-  1 
sion  delight  in  sending  out  reports  to  the  effect  that  while 
the  segregated  district  has  been  abolished,  we  still  have 
as  many  or  more  prostitutes  in  our  city,  the  new  policy 
merely  resulting  in  scattering  them  throughout  the  city. 
Contrary  to  this,  we  have  not  only  gotten  rid  of  the  dis- 
trict, but  have  also  reduced  the  number  in  the  residence 
districts  in  a large  degree.  Property  owners  are  more 
careful  in  choosing  tenants  when  they  know  that  the 
Cosson  Law’  (the  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law  of 
Iowa)  may  be  invoked  at  any  time.  The  law  has  been 
a great  aid  in  cleaning  our  city.” 

Statement  of  F.  T.  Van  Liew,  of  the  Department 
of  Public  Safety,  Des  Moines,  Iowa : 

“We  have  PrePared  an  extract  from  the  Injunction 
and  Abatement  Law  and  whenever  rumors  or  complaints 
are  received  we  send  an  officer  immediately  to  serve  a 
copy  of  this  extract  of  the  law  upon  the  owner  of  the 
place  complained  about.  This  latter  method  has  been  in 
use  a short  time,  but  has  produced  splendid  results  in 
every  instance.” 


The  following  questions  were  asked  Chief  of 
Police  J.  W.  Jenney,  of  Des  Moines,  Iowa: 

First.  In  your  estimation,  has  the  number  of  houses  ! 
ot  prostitution  materially  decreased  in  your  citv  since  ' 
the  enactment  of  the  Injunction  and  Abatement  I.aw? 

Second.  If  your  answer  to  question  one  is  in  the  af-  1 
nrmative,  please  state  whether  or  not  there  has  been  a i 
material  increase  in  the  number  of  assignation  places  i 
rooms  in  which  prostitution  is  carried  on,  etc. 


io 


These  questions  were  answered  as  follows: 

Question  No.  1.  “Yes,  police  department  reports  show 
a decrease  of  about  seventy-five  per  cent.” 

Question  No.  2.  “ I do  not  think  that  there  has  been 

any  increase,  but  in  fact  believe  that  there  has  been  a 
considerable  decrease.” 

Statement  of  Attorney  General  Cosson  of  Iowa: 

“The  justification  for  doing  away  with  the  jury  sys- 
tem in  matters  of  this  nature,  and  seeking  the  injunctive 
remedy,  a proceeding  in  equity,  is  bottomed  upon  the 
fundamental  fact  that  the  state  which  passes  a law,  in- 
herently has  and  ought  to  have  the  power  to  enforce 
that  law.  The  injunctive  remedy  gives  to  the  State  this 
right,  and  no  other  method  has  yet  been  devised  which 
so  effectively  gives  to  the  state  this  power  to  enforce  its 
own  statutes,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  violates  none  of 
the  fundamental  rights  of  the  defendant. 

“ Conditions  in  the  State  of  Iowa  with  reference  to 
houses  of  assignation  and  prostitution  and  the  social  evil 
in  question  are  better  to-day  than  ever  before  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  state. 

“ I believe  that  every  state  in  the  Union  should  have 
a law  similar  to  the  Red  Light  Injunction  and  Abate- 
ment Law  in  Iowa.” 

The  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law  has  been  in 
effect  in  Nebraska  only  since  April,  1911.  There- 
fore it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  determine  what  has 
been  accomplished  under  it  in  that  state. 

Perhaps  Hon.  Grant  G.  Martin,  the  Attorney 
General  of  Nebraska,  is  in  a position  to  know  more 
about  the  effect  of  this  law  in  his  state  than  any 
other  person.  In  a letter  dated  April  10,  1912, 
he  said : 

“In  reply  to  your  request  of  the  8th  instant,  for  a 
statement  of  this  department  as  to  the  law  of  this  state 
relative  to  the  suppression  of  prostitution  and  assigna- 
tion houses,  and  as  to  its  enforcement,  I have  to  state 
that  our  last  legislature  passed  a law  known  as  the  Al- 
bert Law,  which  is  modeled  after  the  law  of  Iowa,  the 
object  of  which  was  to  enable  injunctions  to  be  issued 
against  persons  who  conduct  houses  and  places  of  this 
character  and  to  assess  a tax  against  the  person  main- 
taining said  nuisance  and  against  the  owner  of  the 
building. 

“ The  policy  of  this  department  and  that  of  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  state,  has  been  to  act  in  concert  with  the 
various  county  prosecutors  of  the  state  and  to  see  that 
this  law  was  vigorously  enforced.  In  the  larger  cities 
of  this  state,  to  wit,  Lincoln  and  Omaha,  there  is  no 
segregated  district  as  a result  of  this  law  and  its  en- 
forcement. Perhaps  it  is  due  to  the  authorities  of  the 
city  of  Lincoln  to  state  that  a successful  effort  had  been 
made  to  suppress  this  vice  prior  to  the  passage  of  the 
law,  but  in  the  city  of  Omaha,  actions  have  been  brought, 


11 


and  I am  now  informed  by  the  county  prosecutor,  that 
the  segregated  district  has  been  abandoned.  Generally 
speaking,  I think  this  is  true  of  all  the  smaller  cities  of 
the  state.  If  any  such  district  exists  in  any  of  the  towns 
of  the  state,  my  attention  has  not  been  called  to  the 
same.” 

Hon.  Howard  Kennedy,  judge  of  the  District 
Court  of  Omaha,  Nebraska,  says  in  reference  to 
the  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law: 

“Personally,  I think  the  measure,  if  vigorously  en- 
forced, will  prove  a considerable  advantage  over  prior 
legislation,  and  that  it  is  a step  in  the  right  direction.” 

Hon.  John  P.  English,  county  attorney  of  Doug- 
las County,  Nebraska,  in  which  Omaha  is  located, 
says : 

“A  ‘red  light’  district  has  been  tolerated  in  Omaha 
for  thirty  years  or  more.  In  this  district  were  a great 
many  houses  of  prostitution,  and  some  of  the  buildings 
were  of  an  elaborate  and  expensive  character.  Proceed- 
ings were  brought  to  enforce  the  Albert  Law  (the  In- 
junction Law  of  Nebraska)  about  the  first  of  June  last, 
and  this  office  started  a number  of  suits  against  some  of 
the  prominent  houses  in  the  ‘ Red  Light  ’ district  and 
some  outlying  houses  of  assignation.  The  result  of  these 
suits  was  the  immediate  abandonment  of  the  ‘ Red  Light  ’ 
district.  The  houses  were  vacated  and  most  of  them 
have  remained  closed.  The  ‘ Red  Light  ’ district  is  prac- 
tically a thing’ of  the  past  in  this  city.” 

Other  Endorsements  and  Comments. 

Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  President  Leland  Stan- 
ford University: — 

“ There  is  no  more  important  matter  to  come  before 
the  civilized  nations  than  that  of  the  absolute  extermi- 
nation of  ‘ red  light  ’ districts  of  our  cities.  This  is  not 
a question  of  morals,  primarily.  It  is  that  of  self-pro- 
tection of  civilization  itself. 

“ Thus  far  the  only  safety  in  dealing  with  the  plague 
is  to  abolish  the  plague  spots.  To  destroy  the  center  of 
infection,  to  deal  with  the  Red  Plague,  we  must  destroy 
the  houses  of  prostitution.  To  abolish  these  houses,  the 
only  sure  way  is  to  attack  their  owners.” 

Hon.  Stanley  W.  Finch,  special  United  States 
Commissioner  for  the  suppression  of  the  “ white- 
slave  traffic, ” states  in  reference  to  the  Kenyon  Bill 
(the  proposed  Injunction  Law  for  the  District  of 
Columbia)  : 

“ I note  that  the  law  under  consideration  is  somewhat 
similar  to  the  Iowa  Injunction  and  Abatement  Law, 
which  in  so  far  as  I have  been  able  to  ascertain  seems  to 


12 


be  a very  effective  statute,  and  one  which  personally  I 
should  be  very  glad  to  see  enacted  in  other  parts  of  the 
country.” 

The  Chicago  Vice  Commission  sent  a committee 
to  Iowa  to  investigate  this  law,  and  reports  in  the 
following  language : 

“ We  recommend  the  enactment  of  state  laws,  whereby 
a house  of  prostitution  may  be  declared  a public  nuis- 
ance and  containing  provisions  expressly  giving  to  any 
citizen  the  right  to  institute  simple  and  summary  pro- 
ceedings in  equity  for  the  abatement  of  the  nuisance.” 

The  Vice  Commission  of  Portland,  Oregon,  in  its 
report  of  December,  1912,  recommended  that  the 
City  Council  petition  the  Legislature  to  pass  an 
Injunction  and  Abatement  Law.  Introductory  to 
its  recommendation  the  Commission  states: 

“ No  combination  of  the  law,  the  courts  and  the  police 
can  ever  drive  the  social  evil  from  a city  of  200,000  in- 
habitants, but  an  intelligent  and  active  determination  to 
enforce  the  laws  can  do  much  to  make  the  business  of 
vice  both  hazardous  and  unprofitable.  To  this  end  the 
laws  should  be  simple  and  comprehensive,  the  courts 
efficient,  and  the  police  intelligently  active  in  administra- 
tion and  execution.” 

A FORM  BILL. 

Title 

An  Act 

To  declare  houses  of  Ill-fame,  places  of  lewdness, 
assignation  and  prostitution  to  be  nuisances,  to  en- 
join and  abate  the  same,  to  enjoin  the  person  or 
persons  who  conduct  or  maintain  the  same,  and  any 
owner,  agent,  lessee  or  occupant  of  a house  or  place 
used  for  such  purposes. 

Enacting  Clause. 

The  People  of  the  State  of represented 

in  Senate  and  Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows: 

Section  I.  Short  Title. 

The  short  title  of  this  Act  shall  be  the  “ The 
Injunction  and  Abatement  Law.” 

Section  II.  Houses  of  Ill-fame,  etc..  Declared 
Nuisances. 

Any  house,  building,  erection,  place  or  any  sep- 
arate part  or  portion  thereof,  or  the  ground  itself, 


13 


in  or  upon  which  any  lewdness,  assignation  or  pros- 
titution is  conducted,  practised,  permitted,  carried 
on,  or  exists,  and  the  fixtures,  furniture  and  movable 
contents  therein  are  declared  a nuisance;  and  who- 
ever shall  erect,  establish,  permit,  continue,  main- 
tain, own,  lease,  or  sub-lease  any  house,  building, 
erection,  place  or  portion  thereof,  used  for  such 
purpose,  shall  be  guilty  of  maintaining  a nuisance 
and  the  same  shall  be  enjoined  and  abated  as  pro- 
vided in  this  Act. 

Section  III.  The  Action — How  Brought. 

When  a nuisance  as  defined  in  this  Act,  is  created, 
conducted,  kept,  maintained,  permitted  or  exists,  the 

* Attorney  or  any  citizen  of  the 

county  in  which  said  nuisance  is  created,  conducted, 
kept,  maintained,  permitted  or  exists,  may  maintain 
an  action  in  equity  in  the  name  of  the  People  of  the 

State  of  upon  the  relation  of  such 

Attorney  or  citizen  to  perpetually  enjoin  such 
nuisance,  the  person  or  persons  creating,  conducting, 
keeping,  maintaining  or  permitting  the  same,  and  to 
enjoin  for  one  year  thereafter  the  use  by  any  owner, 
agent,  lessee  or  occupant  of  the  house,  building, 
erection,  place  or  ground  in  or  upon  which  said 
nuisance*  is  alleged  to  be  conducted,  kept,  main- 
tained, permitted  or  exists. 

Section  IV. — Filing  the  Petition,  Notice, 
Temporary  Injunction. 

In  an  action  brought  under  this  Act,  a petition 

shall  be  filed  with  the **Court  or  any 

judge  thereof  alleging  the  existence  of  a nuisance 
as  defined  in  this  Act. 

A copy  of  such  petition  and  proposed  order,  to- 
gether with  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  hear- 
ing of  the  application,  shall  be  served  upon  the 
owner,  agent  or  occupant  of  the  house,  building, 
erection,  place  or  ground  in  or  upon  which  said 
nuisance  is  alleged  to  exist.  Service  of  notice  of 
said  action  shall  be  made  as  directed  by  the  court 
or  judge  at  least  five  days  before  the  hearing  on  said 
application.  If  the  hearing  is  then  continued  at  the 

*“  State’s,”  “District”  or  “Prosecuting”  Attorney,  as 
the  case  may  be. 

**  Here  insert  the  court  having  jurisdiction  of  injunction 
suits  or  of  suits  in  equity  generally. 


14 


instance  of  the  defendant,  a temporary  writ  of  in- 
junction as  prayed  shall  issue  as  a matter  of  course. 
If  upon  preliminary  hearing  the  allegations  be  sus- 
tained to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  or  judge,  such 
court  or  judge  shall  issue  a temporary  writ  of  in- 
junction pendente  lite,  without  bond,  restraining  any 
person  from  continuing  the  said  nuisance. 

Section  V. — The  Trial. 

The  action  for  the  permanent  injunction  shall  be 

triable  at  the  term  of  the  *Court 

immediately  following  the  issuance  of  the  temporary 
injunction  as  provided  in  this  Act,  and  in  such 
action  evidence  of  the  common  fame  and  general 
reputation  of  the  place  shall  be  competent  evidence 
to  prove  the  existence  of  the  nuisance.  If  the  peti- 
tion is  filed  by  a citizen,  it  shall  not  be  discontinued 
except  upon  the  sworn  statement  of  the  peti- 
tioner or  his  attorney,  setting  forth  the  reason  why 
the  action  should  be  discontinued,  and  no  application 
for  discontinuance  shall  be  granted,  nor  shall  the 
action  be  dismissed  upon  default,  unless  it  shall  have 
been  approved  in  writing  or  in  open  court  by  the 
..........  **Attorney  of  the  county  wherein 

such  action  is  pending.  If  the  court  rejects  the 
application  for  the  discontinuance,  it  shall  direct 

the **Attorney  to  prosecute  such  action 

to  judgment.  If  any  such  action  shall  be  continued 
more  than  one  term  of  court,  any  citizen,  or  the 

**Attorney  of  the  county  wherein  the 

> action  is  pending,  may  be  substituted  for  the  peti- 
tioner and  prosecute  such  action  to  judgment.  If 
the  action  is  brought  by  a citizen  and  the  court 
finds  that  there  was  no  reasonable  ground  of  cause 
for  said  action,  the  costs  thereof  may  be  taxed 
against  such  petitioner. 

Section  VI. — Issuance  of  Permanent 
Injunction. 

If  the  existence  of  the  nuisance  be  established 
upon  trial  as  provided,  an  injunction  shall  issue 
permanently  and  perpetually  enjoining  the  de- 
fendant from  conducting,  keeping,  maintaining,  per- 
mitting or  continuing  the  nuisance  complained  of 

* Here  insert  the  court  having  jurisdiction* 

**  Here  insert  the  kind  of  prosecutor — -“State’s,”  “Dis- 
trict,” etc. 


15 


on  the  said  premises  and  further  enjoining  the  occu- 
pancy or  use  of  the  house,  building,  erection,  place 
or  ground  for  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  issuing 
of  such  injunction. 

Section  VII. — Issuance  of  Injunction  upon 
Criminal  Conviction. 

If  any  person  be  convicted  of  a violation  of  section 

*of  the  Penal  Law  (or  Code)  of  this 

state  the **Attorney  of  the  county  in 

which  such  conviction  shall  have  occurred  shall  pre- 
sent  a certified  copy  of  the  record  of  such  conviction 

to  the ***Court  or  any  judge  thereof, 

and  an  injunction  shall  issue  forthwith  as  provided 
in  this  Act. 

Section  VIII. — Contempt  of  Court — 
Punishment. 

Any  violation  of  any  injunction  issued  under  this 
Act  shall  constitute  a contempt  of  court,  for  which 
the  punishment  shall  be  either  a fine  of  not  less  than 
two  hundred  dollars  nor  more  than  one  thousand 
dollars,  or  imprisonment  of  not  less  than  thirty  days 
nor  more  than  twelve  months,  or  both  such  fine 
and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion  of  the  court  or 
judge. 

Section  IX. — Abatement  of  the  Nuisance. 

If  the  existence  of  the  nuisance  be  established  as  -r 
provided  in  this  Act,  an  order  of  abatement  shall 
issue  as  part  of  the  judgment.  Such  order  shall 
direct  the  removal  from  the  house,  building,  erec- 
tion, place  or  ground  of  all  fixtures,  furniture  or 
movable  property  used  in  maintaining  and  conduct- 
ing the  nuisance  and  shall  direct  the  sale  thereof  in 
the  manner  provided  for  the  sale  of  chattels  under 
execution.  For  removing  and  selling  such  property 
the  sheriff  or  marshal  shall  be  entitled  to  charge 
and  receive  the  same  fees  as  he  would  for  levying 
upon  and  selling  like  property  under  execution. 

* I-Iere  insert  tire  section  number  of  the  criminal  statute 
directed  against  keeping  or  leasing  houses  of  ill-fame. 

**  Here  insert  kind  of  prosecutor — “ State’s,”  “ District,” 
etc. 

***  Here  insert  the  court  having  jurisdiction  over  suits  in 
equity. 


16 


Section  X. — Closure  of  Premises. 

An  order  of  abatement  issued  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  Act  shall  direct  the  effectual  closing 
and  vacating  of  the  house,  building,  erection,  place 
or  ground  against  its  use  for  any  purpose  whatso- 
ever, and  so  keeping  it  closed  for  a period  of  one 
year  unless  sooner  released  as  provided  in  this  Act. 
For  the  serviceyof  closing  and  vacating  such  house, 
building,  erection,  place  or  ground,  and  keeping 
same  closed,  the  court  or  judge  shall  allow  the 
sheriff  or  marshal  a reasonable  fee. 

7 

Section  XI. — Disposal  of  Proceeds  of  Sale. 

The  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  fixtures,  furniture 
or  movable  property  under  the  provisions  of  this 
Act  shall  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  costs  of 
the  action  and  the  abatement  of  the  nuisance,  and 
the  balance,  if  any,  shall  be  paid  to  the  defendant. 

Section  XII. — Penalty  of  Using  Premises. 

Any  person  who  shall  break,  enter  or  use  any 
house,  building,  erection,  place  or  ground  vacated  or 
. closed  in  accordance  with  this  Act  shall  be  guilty 
of  contempt  of  court,  for  which  the  punishment 
shall  be  the  same  as  provided  for  a violation  of 
an  injunction  issued  under  this  Act. 

Section  XIII. — Release  of  Property. 

If  the  owner,  agent  or  lessee  of  any  house,  build- 
ing, erection,  place  or  ground  against  which  an 
injunction  has  been  issued  under  this  Act  shall  ap- 
pear before  the *Court,  or  any  judge 

thereof,  and  pay  all  costs  of  the  proceeding  and  file 
a bond  as  hereinafter  provided,  the  court  or  judge, 
if  satisfied  of  the  good  faith  of  the  applicant,  may 
vacate  the  injunction  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the 
use  of  such  property,  and  cancel  the  order  of  abate- 
ment and  direct  said  premises  to  be  delivered  to  said 
owner,  agent  or  lessee.  Such  bond  shall  be  to  the 

People  of  the  State  of and  conditioned 

that  the  nuisance  shall  be  abated  immediately  and 
shall  not  be  re-established  or  kept  therein  within  a 
period  of  one  year  thereafter.  Such  bond  shall  be 
in  the  penal  sum  of  the  amount  of  the  full  value  of 
the  property  as  determined  by  the  latest  tax  assess- 

* Here  insert  the  court  having  jurisdiction  over  injunction 
suits. 


1 7 


ment.  Said  bond  shall  be  executed  by  such  owner, 
agent  or  lessee,  and  by  at  least  two  sureties,  severally 
owning  within  the  county  or  city  wherein  the 
nuisance  existed  and  was  maintained  unencumbered 
real  estate  of  the  value  of  not  less  than  the  penalty 
of  the  bond,  and  who  shall  be  residents  of  such 
county  or  city;  or,  instead  of  such  sureties,  by  a 
corporation  duly  authorized  to  issue  surety  bonds  ^ 
by  the  laws  of  this  state.  If  the  court  or  any  judge 
thereof  of  a county  in  which  such  bonds  shall  have 
been  given,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this 
section,  has  good  cause  to  believe  that  the  conditions  f 
of  such  bond  have  been  violated,  such  court  or 

judge  shall  direct  the  . * Attorney  of 

such  county  to  bring  an  action  for  the  recovery  of 
the  full  amount  of  such  bond. 

Section  XIV.— Release  of  Property  Does  Not 

Affect  Other  Liabilities. 

The  release  of  the  house,  building,  erection,  place 
or  ground  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act  shall  not 
release  it  from  any  judgment,  lien,  penalty  or  lia- 
bility to  which  it  otherwise  may  be  subjected  by  law. 

Section  XV. — The  Tax.** 

Whenever  a permanent  injunction  issues  against 
any  person  for  maintaining  a nuisance  as  herein  de- 
fined, or  against  any  owner  or  agent  of  the  building 
kept  or  used  for  the  purposes  prohibited  by  this  Act, 
there  shall  be  assessed  against  said  building  and  the 
ground  upon  which  the  same  is  located,  and  against 
the  person  or  persons  maintaining  said  nuisance,  and 
the  owner  or  agent  of  said  premises,  a tax  of  three 
hundred  dollars.  The  assessment  of  said  tax  shall 
be  made  by  the  assessor  of  the  city,  village  or  town- 
ship in  which  the  nuisance  exists  and  shall  be  made 
within  three  months  from  the  date  of  the  granting 
of  the  permanent  injunction.  In  case  the  assessor 
fails  or  neglects  to  make  said  assessment  the  same 
shall  be  made  by  the  sheriff  of  the  county,  and  a 
return  of  said  assessment  shall  be  made  to  the  county 
treasurer.  Said  tax  may  be  enforced  and  collected 
in  the  manner  prescribed  for  the  collection  of  taxes 


* Here  insert  kind  of  prosecutor.  . , ... 

**  This  section  is  omitted  in  some  of  the  more  recent  bills. 

18 


under  the  general  revenue  laws  and  shall  be  a per- 
petual lien  upon  the  property,  both  personal  and 
real,  used  for  the  purposie  of  maintaining  said 
nuisance,  and  the  payment  of  said  tax  shall  not 
relieve  the  person  or  building  from  any  penalties 
provided  by  law,  and  when  collected  shall  be  applied 
and  distributed  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law  for 
the  application  ^nd  distribution  of  moneys  arising 
from  the  collection  of  fines  and  penalties  in  criminal 
cases,  excepting  that  twenty  per  cent  of  the  amount 
so  collected  shall  be  paid  by  the  treasurer  to  the 
attorney  representing  the  state  in  the  injunction 
action  at  the  time  of  final  judgment. 

Section  XVI. — When  Act  Takes  Effect. 

This  Act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 


The  American  Vigilance  Association , 
through  its  Department  of  Legislation , will 
co-operate  with  a representative  of  any  state 
desiring  to  enact  an  Injunction  and  Abatement 
Law . Communications  should  be  addressed 
to  the  Eastern  Office  of  the  Associationj  156 
Fifth  Ave.,  New  York  City . 


19 


\ 


